How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 10)

[Garvin]

Le Controleur Horizontal said:

amusingduck said:

Elysium said:

3. If WTO Terms win and we can put all of the arguments behind us because we know it is what the majority want.

They cannot hide it, the veil just cannot cover the real truth behind their argument. It always shows through no matter what they try to cover it over with.

It’s the absolute nonsense spouted about a three way ‘people’s vote’ where splitting the Leave vote is clearly the intention to give Remain a clear run to victory. It is clearly bks and will never be agreed to by any commission on the subject, but still this absolute nonsense is persisted with. It’s tiresome drivel from posters who are either really hard of thinking or are just deliberately disingenuous beyond belief.

[Sway]

Elysium said:

I agree with much of this. But it also illustrates that we are in uncharted territory. The situation has changed.

Imagine this for a moment:

1. We sort out the domestic issues that make a no-deal departure difficult (ie we actually deal with the Northern Ireland problem)
2. We hold a second referendum - Withdrawal Agreement, WTO Terms or Remain
3. If WTO Terms win and we can put all of the arguments behind us because we know it is what the majority want.
4. We give the EU 6 months notice of our intended departure date.
5. The EU will have no political leverage because there will be nothing to negotiate. So we leave the civil service to agree sufficient withdrawal terms to avoid immediate disruption on our exit.

A Govt with a clear mandate from a second referendum would be in a powerful position in discussions with the EU.

What happens if the result is WTO, and then the EU offer a FTA?

[JNW1]

Elysium said:

I agree with much of this. But it also illustrates that we are in uncharted territory. The situation has changed.

The government, its negotiating team and Parliament have made a right royal mess of the whole process but personally I don't agree that means the situation's changed and justifies a further referendum. The preference obviously was - and still is - to leave with an agreed deal but the idea leaving without a deal was never a possibility - and something never contemplated by Leave voters - just isn't right in my view.

I voted Leave and genuinely believed that would happen with an agreement (not least because no-deal is clearly not in the interests of either side). However, it was certainly in my mind that no-deal was a possibility, mainly because there was always a chance the EU would play hardball with the UK - and cut its nose to spite its face with us - in order to deter others from leaving. I hadn't actually thought we'd get to a potential no-deal scenario as a result of the total incompetence of our own side so I will concede to being slightly surprised (and disappointed) by how we've arrived at the current position; however, to suggest no-deal was never an option - and the situation's changed because it is and hence we need a further referendum - is simply not right IMO.

Let's be honest, the calls for a further referendum are coming from those who didn't like the result of the one held in 2016 and want it reversed. For almost 3 years now we've heard all sorts of nonsense justifications for their position (the Leave campaign told lies, Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for, etc, etc) and your "no-deal was never on the table" is just another example; no-deal was always an option, just not the favoured one.

[Murph7355]

People talk of the WTO as if it's the end. It's part of the journey. And a backstop. A damn sight more sensible one than May's.

The EU have already put forward some terms to ensure there is transition in that event. We should be adding to them, and working out a timetable with the EU for addressing each more permanently in the timeframe prescribed by the terms. Why aren't we doing this?

Because we have a leader who does not really want to leave.

She needs to be gone very soon and we need to quit fking about. Rescind or crack on with a managed no deal exit.

Parliament has already kicked the former into touch. They know it will mean many of them losing their jobs and they know parties like TBP will become a very serious force.

Parliament have already voted for the latter by voting in the Withdrawal Act with ALL its consequences and failing to vote out the default within it myrod times.

The sooner Parliament grasps the nettle and realises their way of operating from the last 25yrs is over, no matter which option they choose, the sooner this sorry mess that they have made will be finished with. Most of them are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves.

[Troubleatmill]

We were told at the outset that “no deal is better than a bad deal”
So leaving without a deal was well known.

Politicians said many time that “we are working on getting a good deal”.

May sabotaged the negotiations and DEXEU. And presented her stty proposed treaty.

Remainers came up with this treaty.
The fact that they made it a stty one and tried to lock us into a trap should not mean Brexit is revoked.

For total transparency. Just leave on WTO.

[don'tbesilly]

Sway said:

Elysium said:

I agree with much of this. But it also illustrates that we are in uncharted territory. The situation has changed.

Imagine this for a moment:

1. We sort out the domestic issues that make a no-deal departure difficult (ie we actually deal with the Northern Ireland problem)
2. We hold a second referendum - Withdrawal Agreement, WTO Terms or Remain
3. If WTO Terms win and we can put all of the arguments behind us because we know it is what the majority want.
4. We give the EU 6 months notice of our intended departure date.
5. The EU will have no political leverage because there will be nothing to negotiate. So we leave the civil service to agree sufficient withdrawal terms to avoid immediate disruption on our exit.

A Govt with a clear mandate from a second referendum would be in a powerful position in discussions with the EU.

What happens if the result is WTO, and then the EU offer a FTA?

If 'no deal'/WTO was a realistic threat/possibility the EU would offer just that.
With May where she is currently and still trying to deliver the undeliverable (it came from the EU anyway) then an FTA would be an offer to be made and had.

Once May has gone things will change, with May still in office nothing will, which is why the Tories are imploding so spectacularly.

[FiF]

JNW1 said:

Elysium said:

I agree with much of this. But it also illustrates that we are in uncharted territory. The situation has changed.

The government, its negotiating team and Parliament have made a right royal mess of the whole process but personally I don't agree that means the situation's changed and justifies a further referendum. The preference obviously was - and still is - to leave with an agreed deal but the idea leaving without a deal was never a possibility - and something never contemplated by Leave voters - just isn't right in my view.

I voted Leave and genuinely believed that would happen with an agreement (not least because no-deal is clearly not in the interests of either side). However, it was certainly in my mind that no-deal was a possibility, mainly because there was always a chance the EU would play hardball with the UK - and cut its nose to spite its face with us - in order to deter others from leaving. I hadn't actually thought we'd get to a potential no-deal scenario as a result of the total incompetence of our own side so I will concede to being slightly surprised (and disappointed) by how we've arrived at the current position; however, to suggest no-deal was never an option - and the situation's changed because it is and hence we need a further referendum - is simply not right IMO.

Let's be honest, the calls for a further referendum are coming from those who didn't like the result of the one held in 2016 and want it reversed. For almost 3 years now we've heard all sorts of nonsense justifications for their position (the Leave campaign told lies, Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for, etc, etc) and your "no-deal was never on the table" is just another example; no-deal was always an option, just not the favoured one.

Agree with this in the main, even if an individual calling for another EURef is genuinely simply trying to find a way through the mess, a sort of national indicative votes process, it's still playing into the hands of those die hards who simply want to overturn EURef2016 result, and it shows tgat with the slightest excuse they pick Revoke as the favoured course of action, even with a throwaway line of renegotiate. In my view it's potentially as disingenuous as the preRef argument of Remain and reform from within.

[Crackie]

Elysium said:

The point is simply that the situation has changed.

You may sincerely believe that this is the case...........others do not. Repeating this rhetoric ad infinitum does not make it true.

Elysium said:

Leave campaigners said that we would not leave without first negotiating a deal.

We have negotiated a deal...……...it's pants. No deal is better.

Elysium said:

They also said that those negotiations would be easy.

Hardly relevant now but when they said it, they didn't know the Govt would assemble a negotiating team that was full of staunch remainers.

Elysium said:

However, I think that the simple and honest way forward would be for leavers to admit that the game has changed and let the people decide if they still want Brexit on no-deal / WTO terms in the form of a second referendum.

You may say, and possibly even believe, that it is simple and honest but the thread is aware of your agenda and your MO.
"The game has changed...…..we must have another referendum...…...with remain as an option on the ballot paper.
1. May's KY Jelly Deal.
2. "Nobody voted to make themselves worse off" No deal.
3. Remain in the EU...…..it's good.

Elysium said:

The only reason I can see why anyone would object to that is fear the majority do not wany no-deal / WTO. If that is the case, we revoke article 50 and allow the 'new politics' to decide what happens next.

You may be correct; there may not be a majority who want No Deal...…...but No Deal is better than the Chequers Deal that Olly Robbin's has contrived. You think this justifies a second referendum because it is the best chance remainers currently have of overturning the referendum result.

Leavers believe the Govt has tried to engineer this situation and should do their job properly i.e. Honour the ref result and leave the EU rather than deliberately engineer a BRINO which comes with the added trading straight jacket & Ball and Chain that Chequers comes with.

Edited by Crackie on Monday 20th May 14:09

[Sway]

don'tbesilly said:

Sway said:

Elysium said:

I agree with much of this. But it also illustrates that we are in uncharted territory. The situation has changed.

Imagine this for a moment:

1. We sort out the domestic issues that make a no-deal departure difficult (ie we actually deal with the Northern Ireland problem)
2. We hold a second referendum - Withdrawal Agreement, WTO Terms or Remain
3. If WTO Terms win and we can put all of the arguments behind us because we know it is what the majority want.
4. We give the EU 6 months notice of our intended departure date.
5. The EU will have no political leverage because there will be nothing to negotiate. So we leave the civil service to agree sufficient withdrawal terms to avoid immediate disruption on our exit.

A Govt with a clear mandate from a second referendum would be in a powerful position in discussions with the EU.

What happens if the result is WTO, and then the EU offer a FTA?

If 'no deal'/WTO was a realistic threat/possibility the EU would offer just that.
With May where she is currently and still trying to deliver the undeliverable (it came from the EU anyway) then an FTA would be an offer to be made and had.

Once May has gone things will change, with May still in office nothing will, which is why the Tories are imploding so spectacularly.

My point, is that then Elysium's solution to uncertainty isn't one - as if that occurred there would be another drive for a change in the mandate to accommodate the "new reality"...

[wc98]

Elysium said:

You will support any argument that walking away with no-deal is mandated by the 2016 referendum

so will i, because it does. by the same token that people claim no deal wasn't on the ballot paper, neither was any other form of leaving. that leaves all options open, including wto.

anyone claiming that no deal/wto was never an option is talking, to quote the lib dems "bks".

[wc98]

Elysium said:

I don't disagree with your post. Various options for future trading arrangements were discussed during the referendum campaign, which included WTO terms.

No one expected us to fail to negotiate basic terms of withdrawal. But that is what we are now describing as 'no-deal'.

The leave campaign were very clear that we would have terms agreed before we left. The position has now changed completely.

did you believe everything the remain campaign told you in the lead up to the referendum ? bearing in mind they were the ones in power at the time,they actually had the ability to implement what they campaigned on.

[wc98]

Elysium said:

So we leave the civil service to agree sufficient withdrawal terms to avoid immediate disruption on our exit.

given the performance of olly robbins i wouldn't be leaving the civil service to do anything beyond making their own tea. they would be working to direct instruction with a big bloody boot on their neck with the threat of same boot up their arse if they returned to their duplicitous ways. another tax payer servant with delusions of grandeur and autonomy that need removing throughout the organisation quick smart.

[Tuna]

Murph7355 said:

People talk of the WTO as if it's the end. It's part of the journey. And a backstop. A damn sight more sensible one than May's.

This is the most frustrating thing about Elysium's (and others) circular arguments over whether or not we were 'promised' a WTO Brexit.

Leaving now under WTO rules is just the conditions under which the actual negotiations with the EU over our future relationship will be conducted

No-one during the Referendum campaign, on either side, or pundits unrelated to the campaign groups said anything at all about what they expected the conditions to be half way through the negotiations. Because clearly that would be the most pointless, idiotic, unnecessary bit of punditry possible. Granted there were expectations around terms, but no-one campaigning was actually campaigning to run the negotiations, or dictate the precise nature of the negotiations - they were campaigning whether or not the negotiations would happen in the first place.

Elysium's arguments aren't stupid because of the tedious pedantry (again, on both sides) - they're stupid because he is deliberately confusing a negotiating position with the final outcome. And he is doing so in order to prevent the actual negotiations from going ahead in good faith.

It is utterly pointless discussing whether 'circumstances have changed' when it is clear that he is utterly unwilling to contemplate actually negotiating a new relationship with the EU.

And it's equally irritating to see people on the Leave side of the discussion leap into the same trap with both feet. No wonder the EU are refusing to budge, we don't even know what we're negotiating about.

Edited to make it clear that this is frustration with the continued confusion on both sides over what we're fighting over. The concerns over whether WTO is the end of the world have to be viewed in the context that they're a finite state that both parties would be more than happy to replace with a more defined relationship. No part of the Second Referendum discussion improves our negotiating position, which should be the primary concern given the hole May has dug for us. This and only this is the reason The Brexit Party is getting so much support.

Edited by Tuna on Monday 20th May 11:09

[anonymous-user]

Tuna said:

Elysium's arguments aren't stupid because of the tedious pedantry (again, on both sides) - they're stupid because he is deliberately confusing a negotiating position....

There you go again, always telling anyone who doesn't agree with you that they're either stupid or ignorant.

[TeamD]

rockin said:

Tuna said:

Elysium's arguments aren't stupid because of the tedious pedantry (again, on both sides) - they're stupid because he is deliberately confusing a negotiating position....

There you go again, always telling anyone who doesn't agree with you that they're either stupid or ignorant.

What if it's true?

[wc98]

rockin said:

There you go again, always telling anyone who doesn't agree with you that they're either stupid or ignorant.

nope, he is saying the arguments are stupid, not the poster making them.

[Tuna]

rockin said:

There you go again, always telling anyone who doesn't agree with you that they're either stupid or ignorant.

Um.... I said the argument was stupid on both sides. I'm sure Elysium knows exactly what he's doing.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Red Devil said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

christian-ohtc3 said:

FiF said:

Meanwhile in a Gallup International survey across the EU27 nations, in a question what to do if the UK parliament fails to ratify May's deal, 52% of respondents said the EU should renegotiate the deal, 34% said it should not.

In Remain land that means the correct decision is not to renegotiate as it's not a binding vote, am I doing this right?

In 1975 only 43% of the electorate voted to remain in the EEC using remain land logic that result should be void as well.

Perhaps more significant is the fact that no ordinary citizen in the UK voted, or was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU in the first place.
How in 1975 could the people of the UK be asked to vote for something that would not exist for another 18 years, let alone understand what being in an EU would mean for them and the UK?
Yet in 2016 we had some bleating that there was not enough information available to make a decision.
Well by 2016, the people of the UK had had over 40 years of `actual' experience of being in the EU, not to mention information from the internet, numerous TV channels, far more newspapers, televised HoC and HoL and other tv debates etc which did not exist in 1975, and the majority voted to leave .
Since no ordinary citizens in the UK were allowed to vote, on whether or not they wanted the UK to be in the EU, let alone be allowed to make legal challenges to the result of the 2016 democratic vote on the matter, is UK membership of the EU even legal?

I trust you see the contradiction between the two bits in bold.

Elysium said:

wisbech said:

voyds9 said:

+1

I voted to leave

I did not expect an argument about how to stay in and call it out.

I expected to sign an agreement to make our products EU compliant to sell them to the EU. As I expect to make anything I sell compliant to the country it ends up in.

Let's get out then start talks on a mutually beneficial deal

Why is an agreement needed? You make stuff compliant with US/EU/Japan standards as needed, pay for certification. Goods might get inspected/ tested by other end.

Both of these posts show that you don’t understand the single market.

This is what we are giving up:

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/fre...

When debating the issues, why do so many people have this narrow obsession with goods?
The other 'three freedoms' hardly get a mention in this thread.

No not really. In 1975 the people of the UK did not even know what an EU was, or what being a member of one would mean, since it would not even exist for another 18 years, so how in 1975 could they be asked to vote on something that in 1975 they knew little, or more accurately nothing about?
By the time of the 2016 referendum the people had had 40 plus years of `actual' experience of being in an EU, plus the internet, numerous TV channels, televised Hoc and HoL debates, and other TV programs on the matter, plus many more newspapers of all colours, so they had a vast wealth of increased information on which to base their vote on whether to leave, or remain in the EU.
No ordinary citizen in the UK voted for the UK to be a member of the EU, or was even given the chance to, until 2016. Yet in the run up to the 2016 referendum some were squealing that they did not have enough information. At least in 2016 the people of the UK `were' given a vote on the matter, and with the abundance of experience, and information available by 2016 they voted to leave the EU.
If a court was tasked with deciding which vote had greatest validity in relation to the UK`s membership of the EU It would not be the 1975 vote to remain in the EEC, when compared to the 2016 vote to leave the EU.

[paulrockliffe]

don'tbesilly said:

Once May has gone things will change, with May still in office nothing will, which is why the Tories are imploding so spectacularly.

I have the opposite view; it's only May that is holding the party together. Wait till she goes, then it'll kick off properly. All of the arguing to date is nothing compared will what will happen when both subsets of the party are trying to, on the one side, stop a genuine leaver make it to the membership vote or, on the other side, make sure that the 'right' leaver makes it to the vote. Whatever the outcome of that, the party can't survive it I don't think.

I really think May believes she is doing the right thing for the party in trying to fix the EU issue to the wall so that she can be replaced without splitting the party. It's just she's picked the wrong side, as ever.

The problem is that by trying to fix the party to remain, she setting up permanent electoral failure as those voting BXP can't be replaced from the left. Couple that with enough left voters going BXP anyway and it won'r be UKIP2.0 winning votes but not seats. So either the Cons will be forced to form a coalition, or they will be irrelevant. And because BXP means that one half of the party has somewhere to jump and strengthen, (the other part only has Chukka's Ego Party), May is defending the wrong part of the party, the ones that can tell her to F off.

I'd say the best bet for the party would be WTO and ride out whatever the storm to the election, rather than BRINO and ride out the storm to 2022.

But realistically, this is already terminal, she's killed it already.

[Elysium]

Garvin said:

Le Controleur Horizontal said:

amusingduck said:

Elysium said:

3. If WTO Terms win and we can put all of the arguments behind us because we know it is what the majority want.

They cannot hide it, the veil just cannot cover the real truth behind their argument. It always shows through no matter what they try to cover it over with.

It’s the absolute nonsense spouted about a three way ‘people’s vote’ where splitting the Leave vote is clearly the intention to give Remain a clear run to victory. It is clearly bks and will never be agreed to by any commission on the subject, but still this absolute nonsense is persisted with. It’s tiresome drivel from posters who are either really hard of thinking or are just deliberately disingenuous beyond belief.

As I have said a billion times before - this is utter nonsense.

It would be simple to arrange a three way vote to avoid splitting leave supporters. There is no hidden agenda behind the words you have highlighted and if you are not willing to take that at face value then tough.

For what its worth, I think people like you are being disingenuous every single time that you suggest no-deal is mandated by the 2016 vote or that a second referendum would be undemocratic.

We simply do not know if the majority want to leave without a deal. To ignore that basic fact and forge ahead based on the 2016 vote is an affront to democracy. Anyone who does that will come to regret it in time.